IRC log of tt on 2023-04-27
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:01:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 15:01:14 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-irc
- 15:01:14 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 15:01:15 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 15:02:08 [nigel]
- Present: Eric, Gary, Chris, Nigel, Cyril, Andreas
- 15:02:11 [nigel]
- Chair: Gary, Nigel
- 15:02:13 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 15:02:41 [atai]
- atai has joined #tt
- 15:02:47 [nigel]
- Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-tt-minutes.html
- 15:02:52 [nigel]
- Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/249
- 15:03:08 [nigel]
- Present+ Pierre
- 15:03:47 [nigel]
- Present+ Chris_Flick
- 15:03:53 [nigel]
- Present+ Chris_Needham
- 15:03:58 [nigel]
- Present- Chris
- 15:04:18 [nigel]
- Topic: This Meeting
- 15:04:49 [nigel]
- Nigel: On the agenda today we have DAPT, IMSC-HRM CR,
- 15:05:03 [nigel]
- .. WebVTT#512 (metadata)
- 15:05:05 [Eric]
- Eric has joined #tt
- 15:05:08 [nigel]
- .. and TPAC 2023 planning
- 15:05:20 [nigel]
- .. Any other business or things to make sure we cover?
- 15:05:35 [nigel]
- no other business
- 15:05:54 [nigel]
- .. Anyone want to switch the order around?
- 15:06:32 [nigel]
- Present+ James
- 15:06:43 [nigel]
- no order changes
- 15:06:44 [nigel]
- Topic: DAPT
- 15:07:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: We published FPWD, thank you everyone
- 15:07:06 [cpn]
- scribe+ cpn
- 15:07:09 [jcraig]
- jcraig has joined #tt
- 15:07:11 [nigel]
- -> FPWD published at https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-dapt-20230425/
- 15:07:16 [jcraig]
- present+
- 15:07:24 [nigel]
- -> Blog post at https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/9896
- 15:07:44 [jcraig]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 15:07:46 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html jcraig
- 15:07:53 [cpn]
- Nigel: Some open issues to address
- 15:08:31 [cpn]
- ... Atsushi is setting up auto-publication
- 15:08:42 [cpn]
- ... We'll need to request horizontal and wide review, and address any comments
- 15:09:02 [cpn]
- ... Shall I rebase open pull requests?
- 15:09:12 [cpn]
- Cyril: Feel free to do it now, or I can next week
- 15:09:32 [cpn]
- Nigel: Anything else to say on DAPT?
- 15:10:01 [cpn_]
- cpn_ has joined #tt
- 15:10:05 [cpn_]
- scribe+ cpn_
- 15:10:09 [cpn_]
- Topic: IMSC HRM
- 15:10:29 [cpn_]
- Nigel: TAG review has been open a long time. I messaged Amy and Hadley to find out what's happening
- 15:11:16 [cpn_]
- ... We also need to sort out CR exit criteria. I proposed a change, want to make sure we think about it properly, given the charter changes
- 15:11:34 [cpn_]
- ... [reads current text]
- 15:11:45 [cpn_]
- ... I think one of each should be enough, without needing two of one
- 15:12:21 [cpn_]
- ... Either one content-producing implementation and one validating implementation or @@
- 15:12:38 [cpn_]
- Pierre: I think that's a reasonable change
- 15:12:42 [nigel]
- q?
- 15:13:21 [cpn_]
- Nigel: So let's go with that, in absence of TAG review
- 15:13:29 [cpn_]
- Pierre: I'd like to get a date for CR
- 15:13:46 [cpn_]
- Nigel: I suggested 8 weeks after publication
- 15:14:25 [cpn_]
- Pierre: As soon as we agree to publish, someone will modify it to reflect the actual publication date
- 15:14:37 [cpn_]
- Nigel: A feature request for respec?
- 15:14:48 [cpn_]
- ... Anything else on IMSC HRM?
- 15:15:04 [cpn_]
- Pierre: Should I ask Atsushi to pick a publication date, do we need a CfC?
- 15:15:21 [cpn_]
- Nigel: We will, but nervous about doing that without TAG review, as they're a horizontal review group
- 15:15:36 [cpn_]
- Pierre: They had comments, suggesting to make it a note
- 15:15:46 [cpn_]
- Nigel: I disagreed with that, then discussion stopped
- 15:15:56 [cpn_]
- Gary: They asked for clarification on what specifically needed review
- 15:16:02 [cpn_]
- Nigel: I replied to that in the issue
- 15:16:17 [cpn_]
- Gary: On making it a note is more of a personal thought than a TAG consensus
- 15:16:21 [nigel]
- Present+ Eryk_Vershen
- 15:16:23 [cpn_]
- Nigel: I think so
- 15:17:22 [cpn_]
- Pierre: What's the right process? We can demonstrate review, let's say we're about to go to CR, set a date for them to do something
- 15:17:54 [cpn_]
- Nigel: This discussion is enough for me to go back to TAG, to say we're being held up
- 15:18:12 [cpn_]
- Pierre: Having a date makes it more concrete
- 15:18:32 [cpn_]
- Nigel: May 16?
- 15:18:36 [cpn_]
- Pierre: Sounds good
- 15:18:52 [cpn_]
- Nigel: Any more on this topic?
- 15:18:59 [cpn_]
- (nothing)
- 15:19:12 [cpn_]
- Topic: WebVTT issue 512
- 15:19:42 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/512
- 15:20:02 [nigel]
- jcraig: There seems to be a negative response to #511, so should we close that?
- 15:20:13 [nigel]
- .. This is on the ambiguity of metadata, and there being no path to know
- 15:20:17 [nigel]
- .. if it is metadata or a caption.
- 15:20:29 [nigel]
- .. I suggested either a JSON block or a URI, but others are using other types of metadata
- 15:20:33 [nigel]
- .. so it is not always clear
- 15:20:37 [nigel]
- q?
- 15:20:55 [nigel]
- cpn_: I'm wondering what other alternative options for signalling the format we could think of.
- 15:21:12 [nigel]
- Gary: I suggested a Metadata block akin to the Region block, should be backwards compatible.
- 15:21:23 [nigel]
- .. I haven't tested that, but generally WebVTT says to ignore stuff you don't know about.
- 15:21:29 [nigel]
- .. My main concern is backwards compat
- 15:21:41 [nigel]
- .. General idea of having an in-file signal for the type of file is a valid request
- 15:22:02 [nigel]
- jcraig: OK, I'll leave that one open and Eric and I will look into it more.
- 15:22:18 [nigel]
- Gary: Do you want to give an overview of this proposal?
- 15:23:01 [nigel]
- jcraig: Sure. [shares screen showing issue]
- 15:23:20 [nigel]
- .. A few weeks ago Apple released the ability for Apple hardware devices like a Mac, AppleTV or iOS device
- 15:23:35 [nigel]
- .. to automatically dim the screen by looking a few frames ahead at the flash patterns.
- 15:23:48 [nigel]
- .. We released an open source library for this on GitHub as well.
- 15:23:59 [nigel]
- .. The idea is to help anyone who has a negative reaction to the flashing,
- 15:24:10 [nigel]
- .. as an alternative to only having a content warning.
- 15:24:22 [nigel]
- .. We'd like to timecode where the flashing is.
- 15:24:37 [nigel]
- .. We have an HLS proposal that Eryk V worked on. More information about that soon.
- 15:24:48 [nigel]
- .. We would ideally like a way to specify the algorithm optionally.
- 15:25:01 [nigel]
- .. In my VTT proposal it just says "level" without defining what that means.
- 15:25:19 [nigel]
- .. If we were to include a test-uri and a test-version we could specify unambiguously what that level meant.
- 15:25:34 [nigel]
- .. We could do a number of things with this, most obviously adjusting the timeline in some degree.
- 15:25:42 [nigel]
- .. Like skipping over the flashes.
- 15:25:50 [nigel]
- .. Thank you all who contributed to the discussion.
- 15:26:12 [nigel]
- .. It seems like the general consensus is to not use WebVTT for this.
- 15:26:16 [cpn_]
- q+
- 15:26:26 [nigel]
- .. I'm not as familiar with WebVMT - Eric might want to add more context.
- 15:26:31 [nigel]
- .. Happy to try to answer any more questions.
- 15:26:43 [nigel]
- .. I know there were some HLS questions in the channel that haven't been answered yet.
- 15:26:48 [nigel]
- ack cp
- 15:27:08 [nigel]
- cpn_: WebVTT in terms of metadata is completely generic, and does not define any semantics
- 15:27:28 [nigel]
- .. about metadata. WebVMT is an example for synchronising location and orientation data with video media.
- 15:27:38 [nigel]
- .. It's a standalone specification that builds on top of WebVTT,
- 15:27:49 [nigel]
- .. and defines the JSON object carried in the VTT file and its semantic.
- 15:28:00 [nigel]
- .. The approach is to define it in its own specification as an application
- 15:28:07 [nigel]
- .. rather than being in the WebVTT spec itself.
- 15:28:22 [nigel]
- Gary: Yes, WebVMT also is a bit of a fork because it adds extra features to WebVTT.
- 15:28:32 [nigel]
- .. If we go that route this metadata format would be simpler because it would not need
- 15:28:44 [nigel]
- .. to redefine what WebVTT already defines, it would point to them directly.
- 15:28:59 [nigel]
- q+
- 15:29:13 [nigel]
- Gary: I was asking about how it would be represented in HLS.
- 15:29:44 [nigel]
- .. How do you put it in the manifest, and how do you represent it in the TextTracks object.
- 15:30:13 [nigel]
- Eryk: We use the DATERANGE tag in HLS. For conveying this data we have a specific class
- 15:30:19 [nigel]
- .. and an added attribute that denotes the risk.
- 15:30:26 [nigel]
- .. That's it, in the multi-variant playlist.
- 15:30:40 [nigel]
- jcraig: And the class mentioned is more or less the same as the type value.
- 15:30:48 [nigel]
- Eryk: Yes, it's a little more verbose.
- 15:31:00 [nigel]
- Gary: So the HLS wouldn't be a segmented version of this WebVTT?
- 15:31:04 [nigel]
- jcraig: It's different.
- 15:31:08 [nigel]
- Gary: That sounds fine.
- 15:31:25 [nigel]
- jcraig: The similarity is the timecode and the level - the type would be equivalent but not the same.
- 15:31:46 [nigel]
- .. We chose that because general flash and red flash definitions are common in WCAG so we could expand
- 15:31:49 [nigel]
- .. it to that pattern.
- 15:32:04 [nigel]
- Gary: It's exposed how HLS and Safari expose DATERANGE on the video element?
- 15:32:14 [nigel]
- Eric: We expose DATERANGE as a data cue
- 15:32:22 [nigel]
- Gary: That answers my questions.
- 15:32:27 [jcraig]
- q?
- 15:32:43 [cpn_]
- Nigel: Is this an Apple only feature, are other implementers interested?
- 15:33:12 [cpn_]
- James: We hope others will be interested, users seem to be excited about it, so we'd like to have other platforms benefit from the idea
- 15:33:40 [cpn_]
- ... And we'd like to enable it for Apple's services on other platforms, Android apps and TV+ content for Samsung TVs etc
- 15:33:57 [cpn_]
- Eryk: We'll be publishing it at the developers conference
- 15:34:10 [atai]
- q+
- 15:34:30 [cpn_]
- Nigel: I'm supportive of the idea it should be a separate spec. A good approach could be to draft a spec for this, and try to get support
- 15:34:42 [cpn_]
- ... Consider whether it's a Rec track document or a Note
- 15:34:53 [cpn_]
- James: I'd defer to Eric or any of you on that
- 15:35:12 [cpn_]
- Eric: Not sure there's a benefit to it being on the Rec track, it's more work, and may not be a benefit to anyone else
- 15:35:24 [cpn_]
- Nigel: There's a lower bar for publishing a Note
- 15:35:58 [cpn_]
- ... A Note isn't normative, it doesn't carry any imprimatur of W3C as a whole, it's a document that people may find useful
- 15:36:18 [cpn_]
- ... We've used it for things that look normative, but things useful for industry more than things that are a recommendation
- 15:37:11 [cpn_]
- James: Would a Note be a link to an external document?
- 15:37:30 [nigel]
- cpn_: A Note is its own document rather than a note within a different document.
- 15:37:38 [nigel]
- jcraig: Yes. It's a W3C Document type
- 15:38:18 [jcraig]
- q+ EricC
- 15:38:23 [nigel]
- Gary: You can't reference a Note normatively from a Rec
- 15:38:37 [cpn_]
- q+
- 15:38:47 [nigel]
- Nigel: The status of the document on a Note will say nobody should reference it normatively.
- 15:38:49 [nigel]
- ack nigel
- 15:38:56 [nigel]
- ack atai
- 15:39:03 [pal]
- pal has joined #tt
- 15:39:07 [pal]
- q+
- 15:39:09 [nigel]
- Andreas: That's definitely a good activity that I would support.
- 15:39:22 [nigel]
- .. More generic question. We're discussing the syntax and the transport container.
- 15:39:30 [nigel]
- .. Is there any more thought about a generic semantic model
- 15:39:35 [nigel]
- .. that could be used for other formats.
- 15:39:47 [nigel]
- .. Is the model already there? Or would it be useful to define it in a way that
- 15:39:53 [nigel]
- .. could be used in other syntaxes or containers?
- 15:39:58 [nigel]
- Gary: Like in IMSC?
- 15:40:02 [nigel]
- Andreas: Yes
- 15:40:18 [nigel]
- Eric: Do you mean specifically this kind of metadata or more generically to define a way to be able
- 15:40:26 [nigel]
- .. to have other types of metadata in a VTT file?
- 15:40:32 [nigel]
- Andreas: This specific flashing metadata
- 15:40:36 [nigel]
- q?
- 15:40:49 [nigel]
- jcraig: I'm not sure I fully understood that
- 15:41:10 [nigel]
- .. We can dig into that
- 15:41:20 [nigel]
- Andreas: It's independent of format, it's just a thought that this kind of information
- 15:41:32 [nigel]
- .. would be structured specifically somewhere so it could be used regardless of format.
- 15:41:39 [nigel]
- .. The semantics and expected behaviour could be similar.
- 15:41:51 [nigel]
- jcraig: The data itself is not so complex that it would be difficult to do that transformation into other formats.
- 15:41:59 [nigel]
- .. We're using it a different way in HLS.
- 15:42:17 [nigel]
- .. I'm not opposed to a reusable structured format, that e.g. MPEG DASH could choose to implement,
- 15:42:33 [nigel]
- .. using a format that this group defines, say, but I would not want a requirement to have a pass-through
- 15:42:46 [nigel]
- .. format that would need to be supported. If we did want that we would need a Rec track document.
- 15:42:55 [nigel]
- .. But a JSON block that can be used elsewhere, I'm all for that.
- 15:43:13 [nigel]
- Eric: Or is the suggestion more to have a document that defines a value range, the elements of the metadata
- 15:43:29 [nigel]
- .. so that in this case we could use it in JSON form, but it could also be used in XML form, pointing
- 15:43:37 [nigel]
- .. back to a document that defines how to interpret them.
- 15:43:48 [nigel]
- Andreas: Yes, thank you that's exactly what I had in mind.
- 15:44:01 [nigel]
- jcraig: Seems reasonable to me. I don't think value should be defined in the transfer format
- 15:44:12 [nigel]
- .. because it will be different depending on the algorithm that's used.
- 15:44:29 [nigel]
- .. Apple's general flash algorithm outperforms Harding in some specific ways.
- 15:44:44 [nigel]
- .. I could see there being multiple tracks, one using Harding, one the Apple open source algorithm,
- 15:44:50 [nigel]
- .. another some other algorithm.
- 15:44:58 [nigel]
- .. It's unlikely that anyone would ship all three.
- 15:45:06 [nigel]
- .. The algorithm would define it, not the transport format.
- 15:45:08 [nigel]
- q?
- 15:45:18 [nigel]
- EricC: Do we have a document that defines these things for our new algorithm?
- 15:45:26 [Eric]
- q-
- 15:45:35 [nigel]
- ack Eric
- 15:45:51 [nigel]
- Eric: If we do write up a Note or a Rec track document I don't think it needs to mention WebVMT.
- 15:45:57 [nigel]
- .. It is just another type of metadata track.
- 15:46:12 [jcraig]
- OSS project https://github.com/apple/VideoFlashingReduction/
- 15:46:33 [nigel]
- jcraig: Posting some links here. The above is an algorithm.
- 15:46:56 [nigel]
- .. There are also ePubs and PDFs that explain more, the first two links on the Whats New page:
- 15:46:59 [jcraig]
- https://developer.apple.com/accessibility/#whats-new
- 15:47:06 [nigel]
- -> https://developer.apple.com/accessibility/#whats-new What's New Page
- 15:47:24 [nigel]
- jcraig: The ePub embeds a video.
- 15:47:25 [nigel]
- q?
- 15:47:30 [nigel]
- ack cpn_
- 15:47:41 [nigel]
- cpn_: Coming back to the Note/Rec track question.
- 15:47:54 [nigel]
- .. If this does become something more widely adopted across implementations,
- 15:47:56 [jcraig]
- Those are also linked in Issue 512
- 15:48:04 [nigel]
- .. is there anything that prevents a Note from being promoted to the Rec track?
- 15:48:17 [nigel]
- .. Once there are multiple implementations you would want the benefits of a Rec track.
- 15:48:30 [nigel]
- jcraig: I can't think of anything that would prevent us from promoting a Note to a Rec
- 15:48:39 [nigel]
- Nigel: Are there any IPR considerations here?
- 15:48:50 [nigel]
- jcraig: Good question, I will have to get back to you on that one.
- 15:49:08 [nigel]
- .. We did an IPR review before I posted this issue and the algorithm and open source project.
- 15:49:23 [nigel]
- .. If it were within the TTWG it would be covered by the W3C patent policy.
- 15:49:53 [nigel]
- Pierre: Whatever is submitted to this group (by members) is subject to the IPR policy.
- 15:50:00 [nigel]
- .. There's an exclusion that starts with the FPWD.
- 15:50:30 [gkatsev]
- q?
- 15:50:36 [jcraig]
- ack p
- 15:50:41 [nigel]
- .. I've never heard that publishing a Note relaxes the constraints for a Rec track.
- 15:50:58 [nigel]
- .. At a high level, a WG Note is a WG decision, really. The consensus body and review will be a lot
- 15:51:04 [nigel]
- .. narrower than for a Rec track document.
- 15:51:13 [nigel]
- .. You'll get much less attention, and there will be a lot less overhead.
- 15:51:26 [jcraig]
- s/TTWG it would be covered by the W3C patent policy./TTWG I think it would be covered by the W3C patent policy, but I will take a note to follow up internally./
- 15:51:37 [nigel]
- .. We talked about IPR. Typically, what I've mostly seen in Notes is application of existing standards
- 15:52:02 [nigel]
- .. Something with its own applications, process and technology is typically better as a Rec track document.
- 15:52:10 [nigel]
- .. I don't have a strong opinion, just trying to answer the question.
- 15:52:24 [nigel]
- jcraig: Maybe the alternative is to take this as an incubator and not decide on Note or Rec track until
- 15:52:28 [nigel]
- .. later in the process.
- 15:52:41 [nigel]
- .. We can publish in WICG and bring into TTWG if that's the appropriate place for it to land.
- 15:52:47 [nigel]
- Pierre: That's true too.
- 15:53:35 [cpn_]
- Nigel: WICG isn't the only place to incubate, can do in WG or another CG
- 15:53:47 [cpn_]
- ... We have a broad charter in terms of applications of timed text
- 15:54:09 [cpn_]
- James: Easier for us to participate where other organisations have joined already
- 15:54:35 [cpn_]
- Nigel: Publishing a Note in a WG is a bit like an incubation
- 15:55:35 [cpn_]
- James: My typical process in WICG is write in a wiki page, hence a reason to prefer that. The other benefit is you get people who are just interested in the one topic, which helps with organising meetings
- 15:55:55 [cpn_]
- Nigel: Any final thoughts on this topic?
- 15:56:05 [cpn_]
- James: Thank you all
- 15:56:43 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Apple to think about next steps for incubation
- 15:56:43 [cpn_]
- Nigel: In summary, Apple to think about next steps for incubation
- 15:56:43 [nigel]
- Topic: TPAC 2023 planning
- 15:57:17 [nigel]
- Gary: I did not submit the questionnaire yet. We have some time.
- 15:57:30 [nigel]
- .. My main question is: we want to do the joint meetings with MEIG and MediaWG.
- 15:57:38 [nigel]
- .. How much time do we want for TTWG itself?
- 15:57:50 [nigel]
- .. I think we're probably more constrained because of the overlap with IBC.
- 15:58:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: I would propose we allocate no more than 1 day for TTWG, which
- 15:58:46 [nigel]
- .. could include joint meetings, and try to be efficient in the time that we get.
- 15:58:57 [nigel]
- .. We normally go for 2 days but that's difficult for some.
- 15:59:14 [nigel]
- cpn_: Would you want one joint meeting with MEIG and MediaWG or two separate joint meetings?
- 15:59:29 [nigel]
- Gary: I'm not sure. One of the agenda topics we're thinking about is the TextTrack API, so having
- 15:59:35 [nigel]
- .. the Media WG would be worth it there.
- 15:59:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Works for me.
- 15:59:57 [nigel]
- cpn_: Sounds good. For MEIG I'm proposing we do a morning, and then have
- 16:00:02 [nigel]
- .. agenda time allocated within that block.
- 16:00:16 [nigel]
- .. I'm concerned that we request enough timeslots in the overall schedule so
- 16:00:29 [jcraig]
- s/general flash and red flash definitions/general flash, red flash, and spatial pattern definitions/
- 16:00:31 [nigel]
- .. the MediaWG joint meeting can be a dedicated session. Then if needed we can have time in the MEIG
- 16:00:40 [nigel]
- .. session for any TTWG relevant agenda topics.
- 16:01:47 [jcraig]
- s/James: Would a Note be a link to an external document?/??? maybe ChristopherF?: Would a Note be a link to an external document?/
- 16:01:51 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting close
- 16:02:02 [nigel]
- Nigel: We're out of time for today. Thanks everyone, next call in 2 weeks.
- 16:02:29 [nigel]
- .. Thanks to those who attend less often but came today - you're always welcome.
- 16:02:35 [nigel]
- .. [adjourns meeting]
- 16:02:39 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:02:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:03:45 [jcraig]
- s/Apple's general flash algorithm outperforms/we think Apple's general flash algorithm outperforms/
- 16:04:08 [nigel]
- s/.. Anyone want to switch the order around?/Nigel: Anyone want to switch the order around?
- 16:04:37 [nigel]
- s/FPWD published at/FPWD
- 16:04:51 [nigel]
- s/Blog post at/W3C Blog post
- 16:05:34 [nigel]
- s/Either one content-producing implementation and one validating implementation or @@/Either one content-producing implementation and one validating implementation or two validating implementations
- 16:06:07 [nigel]
- s/A feature request for respec?/A feature request for respec to specify relative dates? I might suggest that!
- 16:06:09 [jcraig]
- s/It's unlikely that anyone would ship all three./Though perhaps it's unlikely that a media publisher would want to support all three for and specific video. [Update: more likely when it is fully automated.]/
- 16:07:05 [nigel]
- s/cpn_/Chris_Needham/g
- 16:07:15 [nigel]
- s/jcraig/James_Craig/g
- 16:08:23 [jcraig]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:08:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html jcraig
- 16:11:06 [nigel]
- s/James_Craig/James/g
- 16:11:52 [nigel]
- s/EricC/Eric/g
- 16:12:35 [nigel]
- s/What's New Page/Apple Accessibility What's New Page
- 16:13:49 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:13:50 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:14:32 [nigel]
- Present- jcraig
- 16:14:37 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:14:39 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:15:43 [nigel]
- s/Nigel: In summary, Apple to think about next steps for incubation//
- 16:15:52 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 16:15:54 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:15:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:17:12 [nigel]
- Regrets: Atsushi
- 16:17:12 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:17:14 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:20:17 [nigel]
- zakim, end meeting
- 16:20:17 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Eric, Gary, Chris, Nigel, Cyril, Andreas, Pierre, Chris_Flick, Chris_Needham, James, jcraig, Eryk_Vershen
- 16:20:19 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 16:20:20 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/27-tt-minutes.html Zakim
- 16:20:26 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 16:20:26 [nigel]
- rrsagent, excuse us
- 16:20:26 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items
- 16:20:27 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt